On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > There are several other structures that have the same problem; very
> > generic sounding members. I wonder would a patch changing struct page
> > to something like this be acceptable?
> What would be acceptable is something that understands C, and that can be
> used to follow these things. Like "tags".
> I do not like hungarian notion. I do not agree with making names easy to
> grep for. I like _human_ readable source code.
I don't like hungarian notation too, but tags is out of question,
unfortunately. Too much preprocessor abuse in include/*/*.h. Besides,
tags doesn't distinguish structure types, IIRC - same problem as with grep
(notice the pattern I've used - it weeds out everything not in the "field
of some structure" contexts).
The _real_ problem is preprocessor abuse. BTW, could we schedule for
2.5 the following?
* things like CONFIG_FOO are _always_ defined. As 0 or 1, that is.
* #ifdef CONFIG_FOO => if (CONFIG_FOO) in *.c. gcc will kill the unused
branches just fine.
* Yes, Virginia, it means that controlflow-affecting expansion has to
go. Good riddance, IMO.
Goal: making sure that every bloody line of the files we choose to
compile goes through the parser. Will do wonders with test coverage and will
make analysis tools like tags viable. Then we can just use the gcc frontend
output as input for such beasts.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST